Authority: Calcutta High Court, Division Bench (Justice Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee)

Order Date: 17 June 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Kundan Kumar Singh & Anr., employees/officers of State Bank of India (SBI).
  • Opposite Party No.1 (complainant): Parag Mukhopadhyay, who participated in an e‑auction of a car parking space.
  • The dispute arose over a 148 sq ft parking space in Pritha Apartment, Kolkata, which SBI had taken symbolic possession under the SARFAESI Act on 07‑11‑2013 and later put up for sale on an “as is where is” basis via an e‑auction notice dated 29‑10‑2021.
  • The complainant purchased the space for Rs 2,90,000 on 30‑12‑2021, was declared highest bidder, but SBI repeatedly asked him to collect the sale certificate and take physical possession.
  • The complainant alleged that SBI failed to hand over the sale certificate and possession, claiming the space actually belonged to Mrs. Chobi Kar Roy, who was already in peaceful possession of part of the space.
  • Criminal complaint AC 3456/2024 was lodged before Judicial Magistrate 9th Court, Alipore, invoking IPC sections 120B, 420, 409, 467, 468, 471.
  • Investigating Officer submitted progress reports indicating that SBI had taken physical possession on 20‑07‑2023 and that the dispute was civil in nature; a final closure report was filed on 06‑10‑2023 recommending closure.
  • Parallel civil proceedings included a writ petition (WPA 22120 of 2023) by Mrs. Chobi Kar Roy and a consumer dispute case (CC/27/2023) before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Alipore, which directed the complainant to take the sale certificate and possession on 10‑06‑2024.
  • The magistrate, however, issued process against the SBI officials on 05‑12‑2024 without considering the consumer commission order or the investigation closure report.
  • Petitioners argued that the criminal proceeding was an abuse of process, that the allegations lacked essential ingredients of the invoked IPC offences, and that the dispute was purely civil/commercial.
  • Opposite Party No.1 contended that SBI had fraudulently withheld documents and that the complainant was deceived, asserting criminal liability.
  • The High Court examined the statutory elements of each IPC section, finding no false representation, no entrustment, no forgery, and no criminal conspiracy.
  • The Court noted that the auction terms explicitly warned of symbolic possession and “as is where is” conditions, which the complainant had accepted.
  • The Court also highlighted that the investigating officer’s final report and the earlier High Court observation in WPA 22120 of 2023 both classified the matter as civil.
  • The Court referenced precedents (Neeharika Infrastructure Vs State of Maharashtra, RP Kapoor Vs State of Punjab, Delhi Race Club Vs State of UP, Pepsi Foods Vs Special Judicial Magistrate) emphasizing the cautious exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the need for magistrates to apply their mind before issuing process.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quashed the criminal complaint AC 3456/2024 pending before the 9th Judicial Magistrate, Alipore.
  • All connected applications were disposed of.
  • The Court directed the parties to pursue civil remedies for the possession dispute, reaffirming that the matter falls within the jurisdiction of civil courts and consumer forums.

Topics: Court Proceedings, Banking & NBFC, Civil Litigation